Fleet Street abandons all first editions as all newspaper hacks watch Dacre on internet TV instead of filing...

4.48pm: Dacre says one of the meanings of "mendacious" is false and, in the context of the seriousness of the allegations made by Grant, he felt it was was justified to use that term in the statement.

He adds that Grant slandered the Daily Mail on four occasions.

4.42pm: Dacre says Grant's comments alleging hacking at the Daily Mail were "toxic" and "explosive" and "he knew the damage it would cause".

Dacre describes Grant "the poster boy for [phone-hacking campaign group] Hacked Off". He says it is untrue that the private investigator at the centre of the phone-hacking scandal, Glenn Mulcaire, worked for the Daily Mail, as Grant claimed at the Hacked Off launch. He says he has conducted an extensive and thorough inquiry at the paper and of the group's payment systems.

he says if he had allowed Grant's allegations "get traction" it would have turned into "a fireball".

4.40pm: Lord Justice Leveson intervenes to say he is not going to make a finding about the source of the story.

However, his main concern is the Associated Newspapers statement accusing Grant of spreading "mendacious smears" in his evidence to the inquiry.

4.38pm: Dacre says he "resents" Sherborne's line of questioning:

I cannot be any more unequivocal – our group did not hack phones and I rather resent your continued insinuations that we did … I am not going to speculate. I am not going to be drawn by your innuendo.

4.36pm: Sherborne says the point is that it is "a coincidence" that the very time of the article about a Grant's flirtation with a woman that there was a woman of that description leaving silly or flirtatious messages on his phone.

Dacre says he is not going to comment on coincidences.

4.34pm: Sherborne is brings up Sun editor Dominic Mohan's evidence earlier this week when was quizzed about articles referring to people being "bombarded" with phone calls.

Sherborne misses the point. Dacre says the MoS article was wrong, and Associated paid damages. What else is there to say?

4.29pm: Dacre says the story was written by Katie Nicholl, and sourced by showbiz writer Sharon Feinstein, from a "source in the Grant camp" that had been "impeccably accurate" in the past.

He denies categorically that the source of the story was phone hacking.

4.27pm: Sherborne says that it is now known there is a "plummy voiced woman" who works for a production company associated with Warner Bros, Patricia Owens.

Owens confirms she was leaving messages late at night and might have been misconstrued as "a bit flirtatious, a bit jokey" in her evidence to the inquiry.

4.25pm: Dacre accepts the story was wrong and his group paid modest damages to Grant.

He stresses that he was not the editor of the paper at the time, though he has since seen the material.

4.19pm: Sherborne says he is not going to ask about the birth of Hugh Grant's child.

He begins with a 2007 Mail on Sunday story referring to late night calls Grant was allegedly having with a "plummy voiced" Warner Bros executive.

Grant had suggested that the information could only have come from listening to his voicemails.

Sherborne says there are eight references to "phones" or "phoning" in the article and three or four references to her voice. He argues that the "clear emphasis" of the story is the woman's voice and the phone calls.

4.16pm: The inquiry has resumed and Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre has returned to give evidence.

He is being addressed by David Sherborne, the barrister representing Hugh Grant and other victims.

4.04pm: Leveson says he has received a contribution from Max Mosley containing suggestions on regulation.

He extends the deadline for such submissions until 24 February; it was previously today.

David Sherborne, counsel for the victims, confirms that he has not yet made his submissions and will do so by 24 February.

4.03pm: Clifford has now finished his evidence.

Paul Dacre has not arrived yet and is not due to arrive until 4.15pm.

4.01pm: Leveson asks Clifford about who he spoke to at the News of the World about the Max Mosley story.

Clifford says he believes it was Ian Edmondson, ruling out Neville Thurlbeck and Neil Wallis. He says it could have been a reporter working for Edmondson.

3.59pm: Clifford says a "responsible body" is needed to restore the confidence of the British public in the press.

He adds: "I think the credibility of the British press has sunk in recent years … the more responsible and the more caring the British press, the better. I would also love to see good news in the British papers because it helps to give the nation a lift.

"I don't think having a responsible body … would be damaging to them in their freedom and would help in the long term their survival."

3.57pm: Clifford is being asked about Heather Mills's written evidence that he told her that he would destroy her if she didn't take him on.

"It's totally untrue, 100% untrue without any foundation at all," he says. "There's an awful lot of things I could say about Heather Mills."

3.53pm: Clifford says apologies could be placed on the front page, but not necessarily in full – they could trail a full apology on an inside page.

He says it wouldn't work for papers being forced to pay to print apologies in other papers – they need to be read by the original readers.

He says Alastair Campbell's modus operandi wasn't his way: "he was telling rather than asking the press".

3.48pm: Clifford says Rupert Murdoch's support does make a difference to politicians, unlike Lord Patten who told the inquiry last month politicians were "kidding themselves" that the mogul had the power to swing elections.

Common sense would tell you Rupert Murdoch supporting David Cameron in the last election made a difference.

3.43pm: The inquiry has resumed and Clifford is asked about politicians and the media.

He says the UK has followed the US model where "image is everything", noting that "David Cameron was a PR man I believe years ago and it shows".

Clifford adds that the media have became far more intrusive over the past 20 years; "the kind of things Winston Churchill might have got away with, you wouldn't today".

He adds that politicians are guided by the PR people behind the parties.

3.36pm: The inquiry is now taking a short break.

3.35pm: Clifford says Alastair Campbell was mistaken to suspect the news of Cherie Blair's last pregnancy came through phone hacking.

"It was from somebody very close to Cherie Blair who she told, they told me and I told … [Piers] Morgan and he consulted Mr Campbell," says Clifford.

3.35pm: Clifford says he calls in favours as much as he can to help his clients.

Imogen Thomas. Photograph: John Stillwell/PA

3.34pm: Clifford says glamour model Imogen Thomas went to him because of an affair with a famous footballer.

Clifford called the editor of the Sun and found they didn't have enough to prove it. He advised Thomas to phone the footballer and let him know so he could be on his guard.

"The famous footballer then went to his lawyer and the rest is history," he adds.

Clifford: "I'd rather enjoy my sex life than read about other peoples' sex lives". Leveson removes glasses and rubs his face. #Leveson

3.19pm: Barr asks about another famous Sun headline – this time from 1992 when the paper revealed then Conservative MP David Mellor allegedly had sex with (his client) Antonia de Sancha wearing a Chelsea football shirt.

Clifford says he has no idea if that was true and he didn't give that to the paper. De Sancha gave the interview and the only people who know what Mellor wore were her and the MP.

3.16pm: Clifford says he couldn't ever justify the Sun's famous "Freddie Starr ate my hamster" headline as being in the public interest.

He says someone went to the Sun in 1986 that Starr had eaten his hamster after he fell out with a friend who was her boyfriend.

Clifford phoned Starr, who denied it. His manager denied it, and they both asked him to stop the story. Clifford phoned Kelvin MacKenzie, the then editor of the Sun.

Clifford said to him that Starr denied it but he was more than happy for it to go in because the comedian was about to go on tour and it would be great publicity for him.

"I was happy to encourage – it I was looking after Freddie's career," Clifford says.

3.13pm: David Barr, junior counsel to the inquiry, raises a Guardian article in which Clifford said only 20% of his stories would pass a public interest test.

3.11pm: Clifford says the woman who organised the Max Mosley orgy came to him after the News of the World threatened to identify her.

Not everybody that goes to me is looking for money. Sometimes they want justice, or just a question of 'stopping things' – for example with Max Mosley. Within a period of time the women who had organised Mosely's entertainemnt came to me. There was no Nazi theme to this at all.

What she said was that "the NoW are now trying to say to me there was a Nazi theme … and if I dont they will put my name all over the paper."

Clifford rang the NoW and it didn't run the story.

3.07pm: Clifford says newspapers can destroy people: "Potentially they destroy people, they also do a lot of good things, wonderful things."

He adds that if we didn't have a free press we wouldn't know about scandals such as MPs' expenses.

However, he adds: "Some of the most successful papers are the most savage. People prefer to read nasty things about others than to read nice things".

3.05pm: Clifford says he believes editors are now frightened – partly because of the Leveson inquiry, partly because of the public backlash following the Dowlers' and McCanns' testimony at the inquiry.

"That sent shockwaves throughout Fleet Street, particularly tabloids," he says. "[I have heard people] wouldn't run with something because of the Leveson inquiry."

However, he says the change in newsroom culture post-hacking, post-Dowler is "a good thing".

3.03pm: Clifford says he became "increasingly aware" of phone hacking. He believes hacking was confined to a few people under pressure to get stories.

"Methods became more and more creative," he adds. "In my view that was what was going on … a tiny minority, a cancer that now hopefully has been cut out."

2.56pm: Clifford came to a settlement with News International after being told by police his phone had been hacked. It was unusual in that it was negotiated with Rebekah Brooks herself. He says:

It was over a quiet lunch … It was £220,000 a year for three years plus all my legal costs.

Part of the deal was that Clifford would provide story tips to the paper. He adds:

The whole package came to just under £1m. We shook hands, there was no contract which I didn't until News of the World lawyers revealed the details of my settlement.

2.52pm: PR veteran Max Clifford has taken the stand.

2.50pm: Stanistreet has now finished her evidence.

2.49pm: Stanistreet says she thinks Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre's proposal for accrediting journalists as a kind of kitemark is a "ridiculous notion".

She adds that it's impractical, unworkable and would put all the blame on journalists.

2.48pm: Stanistreet says the union was in the process of kicking Webb out when he resigned.

She adds that he had a press card, and has been asked to return it.

2.47pm: Stanistreet adds: "I also find it staggering that an organisation would instruct, as Webb alleges, that someone who has been working as a investigator [to join the NUJ] … the conceit of it, an organisation that does not let an independent union cross its threshold."

2.42pm: Patry Hoskins asks Stanistreet about private investigator Derek Webb, who became an NUJ member while he was undertaking surveillance for the News of the World.

Stanistreet explains that the News of the World and the Sun refuse to recognise the NUJ and News International have set up their own staff organistion called NISA. This is not considered an independent organisation.

Webb subimtted an application form backed by a proposer and seconder, who were both "journalists in good standing", she says.

He described himself as a "freelance researcher" on the application form.

Stanistreet says most freelance applications are asked to supply examples of their work, but researchers don't have bylined material.

Pressed on whether Webb really qualified for membership, she says: "I don't believe he was eligible for membership of the NUJ."

2.38pm: Another testimony came from a freelancer working on casual shifts for the past four years.

"The culture in most newsrooms can be really intimidating especially if you are a young journalist," they said.

As a shift worker, they did the same job as others, but didn't get the same benefits and felt unable to speak out as they couldn't afford to lose their job.

They said newsrooms also use a huge number of interns to work for free which undermines the journalist's chances of getting on even more.

They said they haven't hacked phones "but there is someone in every newsroom who can turn round ex-directory numbers".

Stantistreet says this is common in newsrooms. Some papers force shifters to take unpaid leave when they come to the end of their 12-month contract before they can employ them again.

2.37pm: Another journalist with more than 20 years' experience said a proprietor demanded anti-asylum stories, either in person or through the editor.

2.35pm: Another journalist said they added "substantiating quotes" which were "often entirely made up" to copy. If he did not, they would "magically appear" anyway.

2.34pm: Another reported discussed Islamophobia.

Whenever they complained, or removed parts of the articles they were asked to write, they would somehow find that bits of the article would find their way back into the article when published.

When the journalist complained, they were portrayed as the "token leftie" in the newsroom and then "targeted" to write the most stories about Islam. The journalist said they were in tears but they were nontheless their bosses continued to do this. They eventually resigned.

2.33pm: Former News of the World showbiz editor Dan Wootton has just tweeted:

Another ex-NoTW journalist claims in NUJ evidence that hacking was "endemic" in industry and "tip of the iceberg" at that paper #Leveson

2.25pm: Another ex-News of the World journalist said they had heard hearsay evidence that other papers used Trojans on computers, ie placing a computer program onto a computer in order to discover what's on a hard drive.

Reading his testimony, Patry Hoskins says over six months they learned from an investigator how to construct a Trojan" and after a period of trial and error they found they could get stories using a method "better than from bugging, theft of bribery".

They add that they only targeted people who worked abroad but this was to ensure they didn't draw the attention of the British police.

"We've all been brutalised by that organisation but doesn't mean we're not telling truth" - ex-NoTW hack anonymous statement #Leveson

2.22pm: The journalist said they have no reason to believe things have changed. Executives talked openly about them on a newspaper they worked on; "those who objected were rebuked publicly," they added.

Some of those who practised the dark arts have been promoted to senior positions, even to the most senior position on a newspaper, they claimed.

2.19pm: Stanistreet heard from a fourth journalist, who had 32 years' experience in local and regional newspapers and broadsheet and tabloid and broadcasting. This journalist is still working in newspapers and TV.

They became aware of "dark arts" practised on newspapers in the 1980s. They learned journalists regularly used private investigators, met the PI and worked with him on several stories.

The PI was able to furnish the journalists with Police National Computer checks, social security records and frequently provided the most up to date addresses for people which was "invaluable".

2.17pm: Clive Goodman, the former royal editor of the News of the World, said he was well paid and senior but still "came under a lot of flak" in front of 20 to 25 people at the paper's news conference.

"There was no doubt in my mind, he was under intense pressure to deliver," said the anonymous witness.

2.14pm: The inquiry is back to anonymous evidence from another journalist, this time with six years' experience, including the News of the World.

It describes constant bullying, including emails sent about his weight

Young reporters were made wear stupid costumes for stories; they cite an example of a reporter "having to go head to toe in meat" following Lady Gaga's appearance at an awards ceremony two years ago. This was "sexist and degrading", they said.

2.13pm: Leveson says just because there are some examples of poor behaviour does not mean journalism has been tarnished; much reporting is of great value

2.11pm: Stanistreet says journalists feel that newspapers' managers have also betrayed them as they tried to pin the blame on them.

2.08pm: The journalist said the freelance situation is as bad.

They said the money was terrible, freelancers were expected to use their own laptop and car. They were "expected to pull stories out of the bag just like staffers", who were on much better conditions. Quite often it was difficult to claim expenses.

"Being pragmatic, if you did what Sean Hoare did or Paul McMullan did, you don't work in the iindustry again – their reputations have been trashed," they said.

The journalist added that they feelsjournalists have been betrayed and have been "vilified by Leveson in the public domain".

2.04pm: The first testimony comes from a journalist with more than 30 years' experience on national titles and worked on the News of the World for three years

There was "tremendous pressure"; they were given "impossible tasks" and if they didn't deliver they would be considered a failure, they said.

"There was a real military chain of command and you did what you were told … if you want a career in the future you shut up and keep quiet," they said.

"The culture is macho, it pervades the industry."

2.03pm: All the journalists whose evidence she has supplied are still working in the industry. The submissions have been redacted to exclude names, names of papers and specific incidents which might identify newspapers, apart from the News of the World. This follows directions given by Lord Justice Leveson.

1.59pm: Stanistreet says these are not individual journalists with a gripe against their newspaper, but a consistent picture.

Some she spoke to "were too scared about their experiences being shared with the inquiry, petrified".

The issues she raises in the evidence include bullying, sexual harassment and cases of journalists being put under "intolerable pressure". She says these are similar to the ones that the NUJ deals with every day; sadly the experiences are "prevalent within the industry today".

1.56pm: The inquiry has resumed and Michelle Stanistreet, general secretary of the National Union of Journalists, is asked about anonymous evidence from members.

She explains none of the 40 or so journalists she spoke to wanted to give evidence publicly.

"Sadly that's not an option [to give evidence publicly]," she says.

In her written submission, she says this was for fear of punishment, being "thrashed" by others in the industry and the fear of not being employed.

1.30pm: Dan Sabbagh's story on how Ian Edmondson's evidence contradicted former boss Colin Myler's testimony is now live. It says:

The former news editor of the News of the World has contradicted evidence given to the Leveson inquiry by his one time editor Colin Myler over what a spokesman for the McCanns was told about the planned publication of Kate McCann's diary by the now closed Sunday tabloid in 2008.

Ian Edmondson, giving evidence to the inquiry on Thursday, said he was instructed by Myler to call Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns public relations representative, and tell him only in "very woolly" terms that the newspaper would be running a story about them without giving the family any indication that the tabloid was going to publish her diaries in full.

The editor's instruction, Edmondson said, was to give Mitchell the impression "that we were running a story, but not tell him specifically what story" and that "certainly don't tell him [Mitchell] that we were in possession of the complete diaries". Myler, Edmondson added, was "frightened that if Clarence knew what we had, he might take action".

Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, asked Edmondson what was the purpose of "having an ambiguous or woolly conversation?" Edmondson replied that the purpose would be "in order to blame Clarence Mitchell that he hadn't acted properly upon instructions" if there was a row post-publication.

1.23pm: We now have a transcript of Ian Edmondson's claim that he was told by News of the World editor Colin Myler not to tell Kate McCann's PR adviser that the paper had her diaries:

Jay: The McCann diary story. May I start by reminding us all of Mr Myler's version – or rather, his evidence, pardon me. Tab 8, page 89. This is part of the transcript of his evidence given on 14 December last year. Particularly at line 20, I think, but we can skim read a little bit earlier on but can I just try and get to the heart of this. The question was: "But did Mr Edmondson make it clear to you that he had made it clear to Mr Mitchell that he had the whole diary and was going to cause extracts from it to be published in the News of the World?

Edmondson: That's what he led me to believe, yes.

Jay: Because reading the transcript, and this is something which you didn't, of course, see at the time, the transcript of the conversation "... And then we identified the transcript."

Edmondson: Mm-hm.

Jay: Or maybe it's not necessary to go on, because we're then trying to interpret the transcript, about which you give clear evidence. But the gist of it is, the bit I read out between lines 20 and 24. Can I seek to deal with your evidence carefully in this way: first of all, you make it clear that your only conversation with Mr Mitchell was on Friday, 12 September 2008; is that right?

Edmondson: That is right.

Jay: Recalling the conversation, what is your evidence in relation to that. I think you say it's standard practice?

Edmondson: Yes, it was. Jay: Were you given an instruction to do so on this occasion?

Edmondson: I was, yes. Jay: By?

Edmondson: Colin Myler. Jay: Do you know why you were given that instruction?

Edmondson: Reinforcing please tape it – and it was standard practice to tape those types of phone calls and I might even say that to a reporter but I would reinforce it.

Jay: But was it standard practice to make it clear to your interlocutor that the call was being recorded?

Edmondson: No.

Jay: And why not?

Edmondson: You wouldn't get, in general terms, a true conversation.

Jay: Because?

Edmondson: They would play to the camera.

Jay: Do you feel that it's entirely a frank and honest procedure to conduct an interview with someone but not make it clear that it's being recorded?

Edmondson: Yes, I do.

Jay: Because?

Edmondson: Accuracy.

Jay: Obviously it gives you concrete evidence (overspeaking) subject to experting what's being said, one understands that, but is there not an element of deception – or maybe I can put is slightly lower than that, because that, I think, is a slightly sort of sinister tone, but at least an element of misleading the person you're speaking to that you are recording them and therefore it might be used to (overspeaking)?

Edmondson: I think that's fair.

Jay: But your feeling is, well, if you did make it clear that it was being recorded, then they would do what?

Edmondson: I would imagine freeze up, not talk to you freely, not talk to you honestly. They might not want to talk to you at all. A number of things.

Jay: I can see that they might not want to talk to you at all, but you think if we did make it clear to them that this he were being taped, there would be more incentive to be dishonest during the course (overspeaking)?

Edmondson: I would say that's fair, yes. Jay: Had there been occasions when you've had conversations with people which haven't been recorded?

Edmondson: I'm sure there has been, but certainly not on a call that is paramount to a story, and something that might be used later on as evidenceThe third question which was put to you in a written notice, which we see at the bottom of page 60272, the question was this: "During the during the course of that conversation (conversation with Mr Mitchell] did you make it clear to Mr Mitchell that the News of the World had obtained a copy of Dr Kate McCann's personal diary from a source who had ... (reading to the words)... intended to write a story based on that diary quoting verbatim from it? If so, please identify with reference to the transcript of your conference where you made it clear." And then your answer, please, Mr Edmondson?

Edmondson: I didn't make it clear.

Jay: And you say because you were given express instructions by Mr Myler?

Edmondson: Correct. Jay: When did he give you those instructions? Can you recall?

Edmondson: From memory, at a meeting on Thursday of that week.

Jay: Why did he give you those instructions?

Edmondson: I attended a meeting with Mr Myler and Tom Crone where we discussed this story. I think we got the story to a point where I was prepared to present it to Tom and Colin, the editor. Colin gave – sorry, I beg your pardon – Tom gave his legal view, which I'm told I'm not allowed to repeat, but which dismayed, shall I say, Mr Myler. So he decided to ask me to make a call to Mr Mitchell, not make it clear what we had, telling him in general terms, basically make it very woolly. I think someone previously used the word "ambiguous" – that is absolutely spot on what he wanted.

Jay: So the preferred outcome for the end point of the conversation with Mr Mitchell would be what?

Edmondson: To give him the expression that we were running a story, but not tell him specifically what story, certainly don't tell him that we were in possession of the complete diaries, as we understood. There had been extracts in the diaries – of the diaries in Portuguese papers which had been translated into the English papers, but certainly not to the sent that we had. He was frightened that if Clarence knew what we had, he might take action.Well, he would do – was the fear that he would, at the very least, tell his clients, the McCanns, what was going on?

Edmondson: Correct.

Jay: ...and they would certainly get back to Mr Myler by phone.

Edmondson: Correct.

Jay: Or make an application for an injunction to stop the News of the World publishing? Is that what it amount to?

Edmondson: That's exactly what it would.

Jay: What was the purpose, though, of having an ambiguous or woolly conversation, as you've described? What was the you intention? That you would have Mr Mitchell's part assent? Could you put it in your own words?

Edmondson: Yeah, it would be in order to blame Clarence Mitchell that he hadn't acted properly upon instructions.

Jay: I see. And was that part of Mr Myler's thinking?

Edmondson: That was his thinking. Jay: Was it Mr Crone's thinking?

Edmondson: No.

Jay: So you presumably were uneasy in carrying out these instructions?

Edmondson: Yes. I had an alternative, which I presented to Mr Myler. He was the only one to have Gerry McCann's mobile number, and up until that point, he had a reasonable or very good relationship with him, and I thought he could argue that we could work collaboratively to get the diaries in the paper, and that was my suggestion.

Jay: And what was Mr Myler's reaction to that suggestion?

Edmondson: No.

Jay: Because?

Edmondson: I think he believed, from memory, and I can't be sure, that that wouldn't be a successful outcome.

Jay: I understand. So you were sent out to make it call and presumably in the light of the evidence you're giving to us, you felt uneasy by what you were being asked to do?

Edmondson: Yeah, I'd developed a very good relationship with Clarence and I liked him a lot. I felt very uneasy.

Jay: Why did you do it then?

Edmondson: I was told to.

Jay: Do you feel that this was a sort of one-off, because we're looking at this one example, or do you feel it's part of a general sort of system or culture or practice, however you want to put it, and this is just one exemptfication of that?

Edmondson: I must admit I can't remember an occasion of this ill be. I'm sure there was occasions where an editor both want you to effectively deceive someone, yes.

Jay: So there were other occasions of deception, to use your word, but this was a particularly egregious (overspeaking)?

Edmondson: I think it is, yes.

12.58pm: The inquiry is now breaking for lunch and will return at 1.55pm.

12.50pm: Stanistreet says she does not believe any of these individuals colluded in their evidence; she did not ask any of them if they had spoken to the Guardian's investigative journalist Nick Davies.

Contemporaneous notes were taken of all interviews, she says, and she typed them up immediately afterwards. She did not record the interviews.

Patry Hoskins gets from confirmation Stanistreet that the two of them met yesterday to discuss the interview notes. Patry Hoskins says she saw nothing that would undermine the witnesses' evidence.

12.43pm: Stanistreet is asked about her second statement, which deals with the union's appeal for journalists to give anonymous evidence to the inquiry.

About 40 journalists got in touch as a result. She personally interviewed them either face to face or on the telephone. Some gave evidence in writing.

Stanistreet has reported what 12 of them told her, as some individuals' feedback discussed their general views of the inquiry so far; others didn't want their evidence shared, even in confidence.

She says she didn't reject any examples of positive comments. "Sadly I haven't had a queue of journalists wanting to share news of great experiences in the newsroom," she adds.

12.43pm: "It's vital that journalists have the protection of an independent trade union within their workplace," says Stanistreet.

Some papers are hostile to the NUJ, she adds.

12.38pm: In her opening statement Stanistreet says the NUJ has campaigned for a conscience clause for many years and everything she has heard at the inquiry to date shows how vital it is that every journalist has such protection.

Leveson inquiry: Michelle Stanistreet

12.36pm: Michelle Stanistreet, general secretary of the National Union of Journalists, has taken the stand.

She is being questioned by Carine Patry Hoskins, junior counsel to the inquiry.

12.36pm: Mills has now completed her evidence.

12.33pm: Mills says there needs to be "huge penalties, not these small amounts that don't make any difference to large organisations".

She says the PCC needs to be "absolutely 100% changed". She adds the new regulator also needs to take account that the expense of taking a newspaper is prohibitive for most of the public.

Mills adds that all photographers should be licensed, and they could be struck off if they harass people.

She adds:

The biggest problem is they [the public] feel helpless … I feel if all photographers, paps, are llicensed and that no newspaper can use a photograph unless it's from a licensed photographer … then they can be struck off should they cross the line in that area.

12.33pm: Mills says that Sunday Mirror editor Tina Weaver ran a story accusing her of misdirecting charity money even though she was told it was untrue.

12.29pm: Mills says she complained to the PCC many times. Initially she was unaware of the body and launched libel actions.

She praises the work of the PCC director, Stephen Abell, who she says tried to act as a mediator.

However, she says editors were judging themselves on the PCC and complaints only resulted in "postage stamp" sized apologies.

Until there is a disincentive for them to write so many lies and untruths and abusive comments, it's going to continue. If I was an editor and I knew I was going to be embarrassed every week with front-page apologies I would make sure every story was correct.

12.25pm: Mills said coverage of her in the press was fine until she met Paul McCartney in 1999 and then it was "'one-legged bitch', 'cow' and every gutter word you can think of".

12.20pm: On the video, Showed photographers are shown apparently trying to get a shot of Mills's house through a fence. One photographer apparently says "we don't just turn up … we do it because we are being asked to do it".

They are also shown chasing her when driving, and there is the dramatic noise of screeching tyres and a car smash.

Mills makes statements on the DVD about pursuit, pacticularly by one car, which she says has followed her from Kent to Dorset.

12.19pm: The inquiry has now resumed and is watching Mills's DVD of alleged harassment by photographers.

12.10pm: Financial Times media correspondent Ben Fenton has just tweeted:

[Leveson taking break ostensibly to get the sound working, but possibly because FA press conference on Capello is about to start - joke ]

12.07pm: The inquiry is now taking a short break while it prepares to show Mills's DVD.

12.05pm: Mills talks about harassment of herself and her family. She says she was assaulted in Brighton and she was told she needed to get evidence by police because the photographers can legally stand outside the door.

She then proceeded to film everything; she has 65 hours of abuse and harassment by the paparazzi.

There are awful things, going over pavements when mothers are pushing prams … we have 60-odd hours of video footage if the court ever needs to see that.

12.01pm: Jay asks about a 2006 article written by Piers Morgan in the Daily Mail in which he said he had listened to a message McCartney left on Mills's mobile phone – but refused to reveal his source.

She says she never shared her voicemails with anyone.

Asked if she ever gave Morgan permission to listen to the recording, she replies: "Never ever."

Jay asks: "Speaking more widely, and it will be my last question on this topic: did you have any reason for sharing a voicemail message with Mr Morgan?"

Mills replies:

No, never. I can't quite believe that he would even try and insinuate, a man that's written nothing but awful things about me for years, would absolutely relish in telling the court if I had personally played a voicemail message to him.

11.57am: Mills says she was contacted by a former Trinity Mirror employee later that day who said had heard the message.

The employee said the paper had she had had an argument with McCartney and it had heard him singing on her phone. She said that they could only know that if they had been listening to her messages, and the employee laughed.

Jay makes it clear that this person was a Trinity Mirror employee, not Piers Morgan or anyone then working for him at the Daily Mirror.

The story was never reported.

11.50am: Mills is asked about a voicemail left for her by her then husband Sir Paul McCartney. Piers Morgan claimed in his book that he had heard the voicemail, which has given rise to allegations that it was obtained by phone hacking. Morgan was asked in his evidence about the incident.

Mills says in February 2001 she was on holiday with McCartney. There was an earthquake in Gujerat and she that she wanted to help with prosthetic limbs as she had previously helped in Yugoslavia in this area.

She made contact with Phil Hal, then the editor of Hello! magazine, pretty soon after she had returned from India. She had had a relationship with the magazine – every time they did a story with her they would make a donation to her chosen charity.

She did not know Hall but set up a meeting. He said they needed some pictures if she was going on the trip and he put a photographer on the story.

She started researching what was needed for the trip. She had a row with McCartney and went to stay with a friend.

When she got up there were about 25 messages from McCartney. They said "would I come back and one of them said, please forgive me and sang a little ditty of one of his songs onto voicemail. That afternoon I went back and all was forgiven."

She then deleted the messages; she never recorded them.

Mills was later shown evidence by detactives from Operation Weeting that the private voicemail messages of her and her sister were hacked.

"We were shown my PIN numbers, PUK numbers over three different telephones over a period of five or six years," she says.

She said she can't say if they related to the Vodafone mobile she had in early 2001 because the police wouldn't given them the evidence.

11.49am: Mills has submitted two statements – 20 January and 6 February – and a DVD which the inquiry is going to look at later.

This is a big Leveson moment. Edmondson offering a clear account that Colin Myler took the key decision as regards McCann diary publication.

11.22am: Edmondson says the paper deceived the McCanns.

"I can't remember an occasion of this ilk," he adds. "I'm sure there were occasions when an editor would want you to effectively deceive someone, yes."

Asked by Jay if there were other occasions an editor would want to deceive someone, but this was a particularly egregious example, he replies: "I think so, yes."

11.20am: Edmondson agrees with Jay that the thinking behind this was to prevent the story being injuncted.

He told Myler, who had Gerry McCann's telephone number, that they could have worked "collaboratively" with the McCanns but Myler said this wouldn't work.

11.18am: Edmondson says he was told to "not make it clear what we had, tell him in general terms, something woolly".

He adds:

… to give him the impression we were running a story, but not tell him what story, certainy not tell him we were in possesion of the complete diaries. There had been publication of extracts of the diaries in Portugal but not to the extent we had; he was frightened he [Mitchell] would take action.

11.16am: Jay asks about the News of the World's publication of Kate McCann's diary without her permission.

Edmondson says he was instructed by Myler to record a call with the McCanns' press adviser at the time, Clarence Mitchell, regarding the diary. He adds that recording such calls was standard practice.

He says that, on the instruction of Myler, he did not make it clear in the call that the paper had a copy of the diary.

He says he was uncomfortable about this, as he was friends with Mitchell. "I liked Mitchell a lot. I felt uneasy, but I did what I was told."

11.15am: Edmondson says he expressed "very considerable surprise" to Crone over the decision to use surveillance because he did not see such a story getting into the paper.

He told Crone: "I hope you are paying for this."

11.14am: Webb is asked about the decision to get Webb to spy on solicitors Mark Lewis and Charlotte Harris, who were acting for phone-hacking victims.

Edmondson says he didn't agree with the survellance, as he didn't think it was a story.

11.09am: Jays put it to Edmondson that Webb's status as an NUJ member was just a pretence.

"I don't think he was pretending to be a journalist but I get your point," says Edmondson.

"This was all just a sham wasn't it?" says Jay.

"I think it was, yes," says Edmondson.

He adds that Myler, legal manager Tom Crone and managing editor Stuart Kuttner were aware of this pretence, to the best of his knowledge.

11.06am: Jay runs through Webb's evidence.

He says Webb left the NoW's employ for about 18 months in 2007 but returned in 2009 when certain matters were resolved.

Webb explains how the paper encouraged him to become a member of the NUJ after the use of private eyes was banned by editor Colin Myler in 2007.

He says he does remember have conversations with the editor and the managing editor about asking Webb to join the NUJ.

11.04am: Edmondson is asked more about private investigator Derek Webb.

Edmondson argues Webb was a journalist because he carried out "journalistic tasks".

He adds that before Webb the NoW used reporters and photographers "to carry our surveillance" and they might not have been particularly good at it, but Webb was trained in such skills.

"His skills were very useful," adds Edmondson.

11.01am: Edmondson is asked what factors would be taken into account by teh News of the World when deciding the public interest in relation to celebrities' affairs.

Edmondson says there would be a public interest if the celebrity has promoted a "false public image" as "wholesome" and they are doing something else in private.

It might be a celebrity inviting cameras into their home, being photographed with their family, talking about their wife, saying "they would never do such a thing" and then it is revealed that they are having an affair, he adds.

Edmondson says that there was little difference of approach to how the NoW dealt with politicians or celebrities.

10.59am: Edmondson is asked about use of "Silent Shadow" private investigator Derek Webb for surveilliance. Edmondson indicates that Webb was regularly used by him.

He says "one of the things" Webb was used for was to see if people were having an affair; later, he says this was "the majority" of Webb's work.

10.58am: Leveson says it's very important to get to the bottom of this. Would he ever have written such an email offering anonymity if the women co-operate?

"I don't like its tone," he says of the email.

"From memory I saw them [the emails] some time after the Mosley case," he adds.

10.57am: Jay says the point of the email is clear – the paper will guarantee anonymity to the women if they tell their story, but if they don't they will lose it.

Edmondson says it is "very very unlikely" that he would have written tthat.

"For a number of reasons: that's not the language I would have used. It wouldn't be my responsiblity or decision … It's not his decision to make those statements. What goes into the paper is down to the editor … these sorts of decisions aren't made by a news editor, or head of news or a chief reporter."

10.55am: Leveson says "it's not just the particular email, it's the thinking behind the email" – which may be constituted as blackmail – that he wants to get at.

The emails were sent after the News of the World published its Max Mosley orgy story, and asked the women to tell their side of the story for the next Sunday's follow-up.

"There is no doubt that Neville, or a number of reporters would have been trying to get hold of the women. That [the email] would have been a small part of it," says Edmondson.

"I have got no doubt whatsoever I would have asked him to contact the women. In fact with his experience I would have had no need to … it's more likely that I would have asked him."

10.47am: Jay asks Edmondson about emails sent from Thurlbeck to women involved in the Max Mosley case.

Edmondson was on holiday on the first week of the Mosley story; he is asked about week two.

"I don't recall these emails being sent at all. As to who drafted them, I wasn't in the habit of drafting or dictating emails," he says.

Edmondson was the former head of news at the News of the World. He became head of news in November 2005 and left in 2011.

He is being questioned by the counsel to the inquiry, Robert Jay QC.

10.38am: Lyons has now finished his testimony and the inquiry is taking a short break.

10.37am: Lyons says the atittude of celebrities is "a great worry for the industry" and that many of the celebrities will "regularly take money" for the photographs. He adds:

Paparazzi in America are regularly used by managemennt and publicity agents to boost someone's profile.

Where we are here in the UK is all over the place in terms of what can't we do what we can do … I think celebrities use these situations for their own self gain on a regular basis. There's two sides to every story which i hope this inquiry looks into in great detail.

10.35am: Lyons is asked about his new website, mrpaparazzi.com, which invites the public to submit their own photographs. He describes it in his witness statement as "the future".

Patry Hoskins says it might be said that encouraging the public to whip out their phones and take photographs of celebrities could be seen as incitement to invade someone's privacy.

Lyons says if he has any doubt about a picture, if it was "unethical or suspicious in any way", he won't publish.

10.33am: Lyons repeats that the situation is very unclear. One day celebrities will invite photographers into their homes; the next day they will complain about being photographed walking down the street.

10.31am: Lyons reveals that – like Gary Morgan of Splash Pictures, who gave evidence earlier this week – he has a "no-shoot list" but this list is based on legal cases. He says he will supply the inquiry with the list.

10.30am: Lyons says PR people for famous stars such as Mariah Carey and Paris Hilton phone him as soon as they are in town to say "she's staying here, she's staying there, they want the publicity".

10.29am: The Guardian's head of media and technology, Dan Sabbagh, has just tweeted:

Lyons is right to say that it rules of celebrity snaps game have become ambiguous, that it is not clear what is legit and not.

10.28am: Lyons says the situation isn't clear cut – sometimes a celebrity like Lily Allen will be snapped looking lovely on the beach and she won't complain and on another ocassion she will.

Often he says they want to be photographed because it boosts their PR around the world and some go as far as "taking cash with the photographers on a regular basis".

If it's on their terms it's fine but if they've done the wrong thing or it's immoral and that's been recorded in history; they've been photographed they don't like it … the problem is when you are photographing someone famous these days you don't now if it's right or wrong.

Others will pick and chose the times when they are promoting their record or TV show or their movie.

10.25am: Lyons asked about a complaint about photographs of JK Rowling and her children.

Lyons say the pictures were taken of Rowling walking down a public street in Scotland. He says he felt there was no problem at the time and the pictures were available for use two or three years before the author's complaint.

The image was downloaded from an archive and used in the Sunday Express several years later, when the complaint arose.

10.24am: Lyons is asked about a privacy action taken by Hugh Grant and Liz Hurley, who accepted £58,000 over invasion of privacy when photographers took pictures of them when on holiday on a private resort.

Lyons remembers the court case, but only "very vaguely".

10.20am: Lyons is now being asked about photographs of Sienna Miller on a boat in St Tropez.

Lyons says photographers have been taking pictures of celebrities in the Med on "since Brigitte Bardot was sunning herself on the beaches of St Tropez ... It was normal practice."

If the photograph shows the celebrity in a good light, they won't necessarily go "legal", she said but if it "suits" them they will.

10.19am: The Guardian's head of media and technology, Dan Sabbagh, has just tweeted:

Lyons better on Celebrity Big Brother. This evidence is catastrophic. Lyons is barely in control of biz of which he is chairman.

10.16am: Patry Hoskins notes that there has been a string of injunctions and complaints made against Big Pictures over the past two years. She asks if any Big Pictures photographers have been disciplined.

Lyons says he will have to take "secondary advice" as to whether anybody at Big Pictures has been disciplined.

He adds he is rarely in the office but trusts his management to take action if needed. He is currently filming show in Australia for four months.

10.14am: Patry Hoskins moves on to the injunction sought by Amy Winehouse. Every time she got in the car she was chased, she was jostled, said her manager at the time.

"I am extremely familiar [with that] and it wasn't my company," says Lyons. "It was photographers using the name of my company and it happens on a regular basis."

He said he spoke to Winehouse's manager and got an apology; he was subsequently invited to take exclusive shots of her.

Lyons adds that the agency often works with celebrities and they get a high cut of pictures sold.

10.12am: Lyons is asked about an injunction taken out by Lily Allen against Big Pictures and another agency.

He doesn't recall the incident the inquiry is talking about and says he is sorry he can't help.

10.09am: Leveson asks Lyons when his attitude changed.

"I don't think it has changed," he says.

He refers to the car shots of Prince Charles and Camilla in December 2010 when the royal-Rolls Royce came under attack from student fees rioters in central London. The car was kicked, rocked and hit with paint bombs.

10.08am: Lyons is asked about a time when he was outside the Portland Hospital in London after the Duchess of York arrived to give birth to her first child. He explains in his book that he didn't know the "car technique" and got a quick lesson from a colleague.

The technique, he said was to "run at the car" and then "crash bang wallop" with a lens.

He says this incident was 25 years ago; if he hadn't got the car shot he wouldn't have been employed by a newspaper again. He says things are different now.

10.03am: Patry Hoskins refers to another article in May 2009 about Amy Winehouse winning a case against photographers.

"As for Sienna Miller now, I don't go near her now, and we throw away photographs of her," Lyons is quoted as saying in the article, but he goes on to question why he should not be able to snap a shot of Miller on a boat in the Mediterranean when she was allegedly involved with a married man.

The articles and images which Miller sued over included coverage of the actor's alleged relationship with Balthazar Getty soon after she broke off a relationship with Welsh actor Rhys Ifans.

"The employed photographers know … exactly what is expected of them," he says, adding that they work to "PCC guidelines". He says he hasn't had much time to "look over the documentation" but photographers have to make a judgment, guided by the management back at HQ.

He says he has no reason to believe his photographers breach the PCC code.

Stephen Abell. Photograph: Felix Clay for the Guardian

9.48am: The Guardian's Roy Greenslade has reported that PCC director Stephen Abell, who gave evidence to the inquiry next week, is to leave the watchdog. Greenslade reports:

Stephen Abell, director of the Press Complaints Commission for the last two years, is leaving. He will leave at the end of the month.

His departure, which has been under discussion for some time, is unsurprising given that the PCC will almost certainly be reconstituted.

Abell, who has spent more than 10 years with the commission, has been in charge during its most difficult period, culminating in the controversy over phone hacking.

He oversaw the early departure of its previous chair, Lady Buscombe, and has worked alongside her successor, Lord Hunt, since his arrival in October last year.

Hunt said he and Abell had agreed that they would work together until they "were in a position to propose a new structure for self-regulation of the press."

Lyons witness statement describes himself as "the man in the know and on the go with all things to do with celebrity" #Leveson

9.42am: Lyons says the freelance photographers aren't regulated. They go out and get their own stories and images, and Big Pictures makes a decision.

Freelancers, he adds, are not his agency's responsibility. They submit material to various newspapers, magazines and companies.

9.41am: Lyons used to be a freelance photographer. He has appeared on a BBC documentary on about the paparazzi and says he has no problem with the term.

"It's only another word in the English language," he says.

He employs 10 or 12 staff photographers but has more than 150 freelancers working for him worldwide.

Leveson inquiry: Darryn Lyons

9.38am: The Leveson hearing has begun and Darryn Lyons of Big Pictures is the first witness.

He is on a video link from Australia and is being questioned by the junior counsel to the inquiry, Carine Patry Hoskins.

9.37am: Here's the latest on the Hugh Grant v Paul Dacre spat – the Guardian's David Leigh has this report.

The row between Hugh Grant and the Daily Mail's editor, Paul Dacre, took a further turn on Wednesday, when the celebrity actor said he had uncovered evidence of misbehaviour by Associated Newspapers.

In a fresh statement published on the Leveson inquiry website, Grant said he had obtained letters contradicting several aspects of the Mail's version of the way it had tracked down and "persistently hounded" Tinglan Hong, the mother of his newly born daughter.

Mail reporters pretended to have a parcel to deliver in order to get details of a lettings agency linked to the mother's former address, according to a statement obtained by Grant.

Westminster register office also denies the Mail's claim that its staff had subsequently handed over details of the baby's birth, supplied privately by the hospital.

Grant says in his witness statement to Leveson that it could have been illegal for the register office to supply such details.

9.36am: Heather Mills is already trending on Twitter.

9.32am: All eyes will be on Heather Mills today.

She volunteered to make an appearance after the former Mirror editor Piers Morgan admitted he had listened to a message Sir Paul McCartney left on his then wife's mobile phone - but refused to reveal his source.

During a tense exchange during his testimony in December, Lord Justice Leveson said the only people "lawfully" entitled to listen to the message were Mills or somebody authorised on her behalf to listen to it.

Mills later issued a statement saying she never disclosed private voicemail messages from her ex-husband to morgan

Mills said Morgan was using her as a "scapegoat".

The episode was revealed in a column written by Morgan for the Daily Mail in 2006, about the acrimonious divorce of McCartney and Mills.

Morgan recounted how he had been played the "heart-breaking" voicemail message years earlier, in which the former Beatle begged his then wife to come home after a row and sang We Can Work It Out into the answerphone.

9.30am: Welcome to the Leveson inquiry live blog – note the inquiry starts at 9.30am today.

It's the final day of the first module and it's promising to be box office with Sir Paul McCartney's ex wife Heather Mills in to answer questions on that recording.

Also on today is Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre – recalled to answer questions about his decision to accuse Hugh Grant of trying to spread "mendacious smears" about his company.

PR veteran Max Clifford is also scheduled to appear as is Darryn Lyons, the owner of picture agency Big Pictures and the NUJ general secretary Michelle Stanistreet, who is expected to be questioned about the submissions by anonymous journalists.